Prasanna B. Varale, J.:— Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The applicant is before this Court seeking protection in the nature of pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 35/2015 registered with Police Station, Washim city, Dist. Washim for the offences punishable under Sections 306 of the Penal Code, 1860.
3. The first information report was lodged at the instance of Narayan Thorat, the father of victim Sanjay Thorat. It is stated in the report that his son Sanjay and daughter-in-law Priya were working as a Teacher in the Zilla Parishad school at Ukalipen. The applicant was a colleague of this couple in that school. Subsequently, Sanjay constructed a house near the house of the complainant at Washim and was residing there. The applicant also constructed a house near the house of Sanjay. Initially, the relations between the couple and the applicant were as colleague and subsequently as neighbours. It is further stated by the complainant in the report that the applicant was thereafter constantly making phone calls to his daughter-in-law, which caused harassment to his daughter-in-law. Sanjay made attempts to give understanding to the applicant, but the applicant paid no heed. The applicant continued with calling daughter-in-law of the informant. The applicant used to attend the grocery shop of Ananda Kale, situated near the house of the complainant and then used to pick up quarrel with Sanjay on petty reasons. On 09.02.2015, the applicant had been to the grocery shop of Ananda Kale and at that time there was a quarrel between Sanjay and the applicant. Sanjay was insisting on the applicant by saying not to harass his wife by making phone calls. Then Sanjay reported this matter to the family members. On 12.02.2015, in the afternoon, the wife of complainant namely Shantabai found that Sanjay was not found outside the room and as such she took search of Sanjay in the house. When she had been to the room called as ‘bore room’, she found there Sanjay in hanging condition. She made hue and cry. The people from the vicinity gathered there. Though, Sanjay was shifted to the hospital, the Medical Officer declared him dead. In the process of conducting post mortem, a chit was found in the trouser of the victim Sanjay. It was stated in the said chit that the applicant has disturbed his family life and he is entitled for punishment.
4. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that though assuming but not admitting the alleged mischief against the applicant, the same would not constitute offence under Section 306 of the IPC. It was the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that this allegation would not show that the applicant was carrying any intention, much less criminal intention. The learned counsel then submitted that said Sanjay and his wife were literate persons and being Teachers, they could have availed the remedy of raising their grievance against the applicant by lodging report in police station. The learned counsel then also submitted that it is not only the applicant who was establishing contact on mobile with the wife of Sanjay, but the wife of Sanjay was also responding to his communication. The learned counsel for the applicant then submitted that the investigating agency has collected sufficient material in the process of investigation. He then submits that the applicant was protected by the interim orders of this Court and the applicant has extended his cooperation to the investigating agency. He then submits that the applicant is not a person having any criminal antecedents and as such there cannot be any apprehension that the applicant would flee away from the investigating agency and will not be available for the investigation. In support of his submission that only a suicide note cannot be a material to allege mischief against the applicant and attract the provisions under Section 306 of the IPC, the learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, reported in -
1] (2011) 3 SCC 626 M. Mohan v. State, represented by the Dy. S.P.
2] (2002) 5 SCC 371 Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of MP.
3] 2011 All M.R. (Cri) 2642 Deepak Prabhakarrao Choudekar v. State of Maharashtra.
4] 2012 All M.R. (Cri) 3863 Girish Sanjay Bole v. State of Maharashtra.
5. In support of his submissions that the custodial interrogation of the applicant would not be necessary on the backdrop of the fact that there is insufficient material against the applicant and there cannot be any apprehension that the applicant would not be available for the investigating agency and as such the applicant is entitled for protection in the nature of pre-arrest bail, the learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgments reported in -
(1) 1981 Cri. L.J. 1808 Jagannath v. State of Maharashtra.
(2) (2011) 1 SCC 694 Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application. Learned APP made available the material collected by the investigating agency for my perusal. Learned APP also invited my attention to the reply filed by the State. Learned APP submitted that the suicide note assumes importance and the same can be a basis of conviction if duly proved. Learned APP placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2014) 10 SCC 577 in the case of Hari Om v. State of Haryana. Learned APP then submitted that the investigation is at initial stage and to unearth the hidden links and to reach to the truth, custodial interrogation of the applicant is must and necessary on the backdrop of the material collected by the investigating agency so far.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State and on the backdrop of their submissions, I have gone through the material placed on record as well as presented for my perusal by the learned APP. Though, it was an attempt of the learned counsel for the applicant that the alleged material against the applicant of committing mischief is only a piece of paper i.e. so called suicide note. The submission was, merely on the basis of this material, one cannot reach to a conclusion of either intention or abatement for attracting Section 306 of IPC. On a perusal of the report, it clearly reveals that it was not only a casual or occasional attempt of the applicant or a friendly association of the applicant with his colleague. The report itself states that the applicant was constantly establishing contact on mobile phone with the wife of the victim. The report states that the attempt was made to give an understanding to the applicant asking him to keep himself away from such activity. But in spite of such an attempt, the applicant neither paid any heed nor stopped his activities. The statements recorded by the investigating agency of the father and mother of the victim Sanjay clearly indicate that though, initially the relations between the couple and the applicant were homely and informal, the applicant started calling the wife of Sanjay constantly. Just 3-4 days earlier to the death of Sanjay, the applicant, who had been to the grocery shop of one Ananda Kale, was given an understanding by Sanjay and in spite of grievance raised by Sanjay, the applicant was giving phone calls to the wife of Sanjay. Sanjay was thus carrying mental pressure and depression. These facts are recorded in the statement of the mother of Sanjay. It will also be interesting to note what reveals from the statement of the wife of Sanjay. The wife of Sanjay in clear and unambiguous words stated that the applicant was continuously calling her in spite of the understanding given by her husband as well as by herself.
8. On the backdrop of these facts, I am unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that even accepting that the applicant was making some phone calls, the remedy was open for Sanjay and his wife to approach the police authorities. It will not be out of place to state that there cannot be a blanket formula for reaction of the persons. Each individual carries different mental status. A person can be more sensitive or less sensitive. Therefore, one cannot presume that all the people would react in a peculiar manner. It is also interesting to note that the applicant on one hand takes a ground of insufficient material against the applicant and on the other hand, the applicant goes to the extent of making allegations against deceased calling him a habitual drunker and regular gambler, without there being any supportive material.
9. Insofar as the reported judgments on which the learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance, there cannot be any dispute on the proposition of law reflected in those judgments. A common thread in all these judgments was the material in the form of mere suicide note. Thus, the Courts were of the opinion that when there is no other material except suicide note, this material is wholly insufficient to attract the offence under Section 306 of IPC. But in the present matter, there is not only suicide note, but there is other material in the form of statement of witnesses. It is also not a solitary act of the applicant, but it was the series of acts. The material reflects that time and again the father and mother of deceased made an attempt to give an understanding to the applicant to keep himself away from such activity, but the applicant who was not bothered with the understanding, continued with his activities even till 09.02.2015 i.e. three days prior to the death of victim Sanjay. The reply filed by the State states that the investigation is in progress. The mobile phone which would be a very material piece of evidence in the present matter is yet to be seized. Needless to state that as there is a reference of the phone calls, the seizure of mobile phone and then further investigation of collecting call details report, would be must and necessary. The learned counsel for the applicant, on the basis of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jagannath v. State of Maharashtra (supra) as well as judgment of the Apex Court in Siddharam Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (supra), made an attempt to submit that there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on paragraphs 85, 86, 89, 113 and 114 of the judgment in Siddharam Mhetre's case in support of his submissions. If we peruse these paragraphs, it reveals that the Apex Court in clear words observed that the discretion of the Court for grant of protection in the nature of pre-arrest bail could be exercised on the basis of the material and the facts of the particular case. Thus, it is more than clear that each case will have to be looked with the facts of that case.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant then made an attempt to submit that as per his instructions, the mobile phone of the applicant is seized on the backdrop of the statement made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State through the P.S.O., Washim City police station. I see no reason to counter the statement made by the officer on oath before this Court.
11. Considering all these facts, in my opinion, this is not a fit case to grant protection to the applicant. The application, thus, being meritless deserves to be rejected and accordingly, the criminal application is rejected.